“I did baptize also the household of Stephanas” (1 Cor. 1:16).
Even Martin Luther and John Calvin upheld the legitimacy of infant
baptism and defended it stridently:
“Who is to be baptized? All nations, that is, all human beings, young
and old, are to be baptized … Infants, too, are to be baptized because
they are included in the words ‘all nations;’ (and) because holy
baptism is the only means whereby infants, who, too, must be born
again, can ordinarily be regenerated and brought to faith.”¹
“Doubtless the design of Satan in assaulting infant baptism with all
his forces is to keep out of view, and gradually efface, the attestation
of divine grace which the promise itself presents to our eyes …
Wherefore, if we would not maliciously obscure the kindness of
God, let us present to him our infants, to whom he has assigned a
place among his friends and family, that is, the members of the
Church.”²
As for the claim that Jesus Christ was baptized only as an adult, it should
be remembered that He did not receive Christian baptism in the name of the
Trinity, but the baptism of St. John the Baptist, which was only symbolic
washing and did not infuse grace.
Finally, it is entirely false that infant baptism began late in the Church’s
history. The early Church practised it without any evidence of opposition
condemning it in principle or as a novelty. However, it is true that after
three centuries of evangelization, generations were now Christian by family
tradition and this led to a decrease in the rate of adult catechumens and
baptisms.
Second objection: “Baptism of infants is also wrong because the child
is not fully immersed in water. Simply pouring or sprinkling water on
the child is not baptism at all!”
It is true that the usual meaning of baptism (Greek: baptizein) is immersion,
and for centuries immersion was the common form of Christian baptism.
1
Luther’s Small Catechism, Rev. ed.
2
John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Bk. 2, ch. 16, sect. 554.
 |
 |
 |